Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
abartlet at samba.org
Thu May 6 00:22:27 EDT 2004
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 02:53, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Love" == Love <lha at stacken.kth.se> writes:
> Love> Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu> writes:
> >> So I think at least for the MIT implementation the oid vs
> >> non-oid question will already be settled by then.
> Love> I consider the ioctl + skim with implemetion specific ioctl
> Love> layer mostly useless. It will make force application
> Love> developers to deal with an exploding API.
> I consider an exploding API desirable. Well it is more like I want
> application authors to be able to call APIs for the extensions they
> I'll drop heimdal-discuss from
> future posts as it seems we have incompatible goals.
Just one question: As a developer of one of the applications that just
needs to get at the various subkeys (for the reasons previously
described), will I or other Samba developers need to cope yet again with
two mutually incompatible API implementations?
We already have too much 'shim code' - shims between the MIT and Heimdal
APIs, and I would really prefer it didn't grow bigger....
Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/attachments/20040506/6c616acc/attachment.bin
More information about the krbdev